2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report
DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain)
Table 5-7: Preliminary analysis of options: improving prevention intra-EU
Improving prevention intra-EU: preliminary analysis of each option
Option: Description Impact Advantages Disadvantages
i. Status quo (with
emphasis on
improving
enforcement)
Some improvements can be made
relatively readily and at low cost;
ii. Development of
common
principles and
guidelines for
harmonized
surveillance
and reporting
iii. General
surveillance
mandatory at
EC level for
priority HOs
(other than
Emergency
Measures,
Control
Directives and
PZ)
Better enforcement
(surveillance for
emergency measures
and PZs) to be
promoted , including
via sanctions or
penalties for non
enforcement
Definition of
protocols for surveys
and for reporting
done at EU level
Introduction of the
obligation for MS to
conduct surveillance.
Surveillance scope,
coverage and method
to be agreed at EC
level and carried out
by MS; covering
areas where pests
could be established.
Low.
Relatively low cost (lower than options iiv).
COM: Low impact in terms of additional
resources (currently 0.5 persons involved
in summarising MS survey reports).
MS CAs: Low. Appropriate
surveying/reporting would require some
addition to current resources.
Low-medium.
COM: Low. Development of guidelines as
such would be of relatively low cost,
especially in cases where existing
surveillance models provide good basis for
replication.
MS CAs: Medium. Implementation of
these guidelines might incur more
significant costs, depending on extent to
which these require significant increase
from current levels of surveillance.
Stakeholders: Depending on degree of
involvement, low-medium.
Medium-high.
Increase in costs and required resources
could be significant. Impact depends on
approach followed for prioritisation, which
will ultimately determine number of HOs.
COM: Low. Higher resource inputs for
coordination.
MS CAs: High (costs of surveillance). On
the basis of current costs for mandatory
surveys (section 3.11.4), the additional
resources required would be dependent on
number and type of HOs surveyed. On this
basis, estimated range of increase in costs:
In-depth review of the global
approach to prevention intra-
EU is postponed if only this
option is considered.
Feasibility of pursuing
implementation of
sanctions/penalties?
Further advantages and disadvantages discussed under option D.2
below.
Aims to improve the
harmonisation of current
surveillance;
Allows systematic data
availability for key HOs, to use in
risk analysis;
Can create opportunity for
stakeholder involvement;
Can lead to improved detection
of risks if better enforcement is
also pursued (option i).
More prevention, more
precautionary approach;
Improves systematic data
availability for key HOs, to use in
risk analysis;
Opportunity for stakeholder
involvement;
Improved coordination (between
MS, between CAs and
stakeholders);
Improved targeting from an
EU/regional perspective of
priority-setting;
May focus attention on
surveillance of pests with
wide impact at the expense of
localised risks.
Increased costs, although cofinancing
and wider
participation (extended
network of MS and – possibly
– stakeholders) could
spread/reduce costs;
May lead to more detection,
more eradication measures,
therefore more costs (more
requests of funding if cofinancing
applied) but at the
same time earlier action and
therefore opportunity for cost
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 342